Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 68-1047.
Decision Date | 09 June 1971 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 68-1047. |
Citation | 328 F. Supp. 578 |
Parties | Lavina TOROCKIO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAMBERLAIN MFG. CO., a corp., United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 624, and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, Pa., R. Herbert Buchman, Greensburg, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Berger & Kapetan, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald, Kyle & Buerger, Pittsburgh, Pa., Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, Philadelphia, Pa., Frank J. Donner, Robert Z. Lewis, New York City, for defendants.
In Goodman v. City Products Corporation, 425 F.2d 702 (C.A.6, 1970), the Court held that the thirty day period was neither uncertain nor ambiguous and that it had no discretion to receive a case following the expiration of thirty days. The lawsuit involved in that case was filed thirty-one days after receipt of the EEOC's notice.
Many cases can be found which deal with the nuances of what may constitute an "occurrence" or what action by the plaintiff may serve to toll the ninety day period,1 or start2 or toll3 the thirty day period, but none can be found which deny the viability of either of the periods as jurisdictional preconditions.
Although the instant case purports to be a class action, we have difficulty in applying the principles of Oatis and Miller. The difficulty arises in divining which of the ten named ladies represents compliance with the provisions of §§ 2000e-5(d) and (e). The pleadings make no averments with respect to the filing of charges with the EEOC. With respect to "notice to the person aggrieved", only the "Notice of Right to Sue Within 30 days" letter to the plaintiff Lavina Torockio is offered. Even assuming that she had satisfied the provisions of § 2000e-5(d), we decide that she did not satisfy those of § 2000e-5(e). All that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watson v. Limbach Company
...at pp. 9-10 of this opinion. Also see, Voutsis v. Union Carbide Corporation, 321 F.Supp. 830 (S.D. N.Y.1970); Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 328 F.Supp. 578 (W.D.Pa. 1971). Voutsis, supra, involved a situation where plaintiff's charge was pending simultaneously before both the New York S......
-
Fannie v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp., Derry Div.
...of the instant litigation will hereinafter be referred to as Torockio # 1 and Torockio # 2. Torockio, et al. v. Chamberlain Manufacturing Corporation, et al., 328 F.Supp. 578 (W.D.Pa.1971), remanded, 456 F.2d 1084 (3d Cir. 1972), on remand 56 F.R.D. 82 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff'd. 474 F.2d 1340 (3......
-
Hinton v. CPC International, Inc.
...as it cited, with apparent approval, Harris v. National Tea Co., supra, 454 F.2d 307 (7th Cir. 1971) and Torockio v. Chamberlain Mfg. Co., 328 F.Supp. 578 (W. D.Pa.1971), both of which hold that the filing of suit within the limitation period is a jurisdictional precondition to suit. In cer......
-
Brady v. Bristol-Myers, Inc.
...Ludwig Industries, 325 F.Supp. 414 (N.D. Ill.1971); Island v. Grainger, Inc., FEP Cases 647 (N.D.Okl.1971); Torockio v. Chamberlain Manufacturing Co., 328 F. Supp. 578 (W.D.Pa.1971); Burks v. Vanns' Baking Corporation, 3 FEP Cases 620 (W.D.Tenn.1971). No such extenuating circumstances exist......